A post on the BioWare Social Network by BioWare's Chris Priestly has word that EA's Origin service will indeed be a required to play Mass Effect 3, as well as word that the RPG sequel will not be sold via Steam (thanks Voodoo Extreme). Here's word:

3) Is Origin required for the retail versions of the game?
Origin is required for the PC versions of Mass Effect 3, both physical and digital.

4) Will ME3 be available on Steam?
During initial release Mass Effect 3 will be available on Origin and a number of other 3rd party digital retailers, but not on Steam at this time. Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content. We are intent on providing Mass Effect to players with the best possible experience no matter where they purchase or play their game, and are happy to partner with any download service that does not restrict our ability to connect directly with our consumers.

5) Is there an opt in or opt out clause for data collection?
Users will be allowed to opt-out of Mass Effect 3 data collection from inside the game.

6) Iíve seen reports that Origin is spyware. Is this true?
Origin is not spyware, and does not use or install spyware on userís machines. In order to allow Origin to install games and their patches for everyone to use, Origin implements a permission change that results in Windows, not Origin, reviewing the filenames in the ProgramData/Origin folder. This is an ordinary Windows function, not an information-gathering process.

I'm really tired of these companies putting the consumer in the middle of this love spat. I want as many choices as possible when it comes to purchasing games, not less. Work it out, it's been long enough.

YES, actually! Why? Here is an example in the music industry. Metallica's "black album" when it was released was their highest selling album of all time. The next album, Load, was one of their worst. Many people regarded the Black Album as the turning point where Metallica "jumped the shark" and they have never come back from that.

What does this mean? It means that many times people will impulsively buy something based on their last experience with a similar product/brand. If AC/DC released a Jazz Fusion album, but simply called it AC/DC Kick Your Ass you would think it is going to be some more great rock n roll. Since you got "burned", assuming you didn't like the last album, going forward you would either never trust them again or just stop listening to them.

So selling less, now, in order to take a longer more solid approach over time is sometimes preferable.

What's this about a jazz fusion release by AC/DC? I'm all over that shit!

Jerykk wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 03:10:Except they aren't doing that. The DLC for DA2 and Crysis 2 has to be paid for and downloaded separately. It doesn't come with any patches.

Also, Valve doesn't care if you provide free DLC with your game. Witcher 2 has tons of free DLC and Steam still sells the game.

It all goes back to the addition of F2P games. Valve couldn't allow publishers to distribute and promote F2P games through Steam and allow them to keep all the profits. So it had to introduce a new policy, which was that any DLC had to also be available for purchase through Steam. It doesn't matter whether it was paid for and downloaded separately, as Valve is providing exposure and distributing the core game.

The real question is why this is unacceptable for EA, as it would make sense to sell all DLC through all stores to maximise profits. The answer is of course that EA takes all the profits with Origin, yet has to give a cut to the competition with other stores. You'd think EA would be happy simply charging extra for their games on Steam but it goes beyond that, as it's not about Valve's 30% cut of the game price - it's about the potential to get that cut themselves if everybody buys their games through Origin.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 02:41:Boohoo, So Gabe has a few less steaks and cheeseburgers, Valve isn't funding the DLC, why should they be entitled a cut from it? They're ALL greedy, putting any developer/publisher up on a pedestal as some holy bastion to gaming is silly.

Of course they all want to make money but Valve goes about doing it in a far more consumer friendly way than EA does. Plenty of devs offer DLC and patches outside of Steam, they just can't exclude Steam which is what EA was probably seeking to do. I don't think Valve is being unreasonable in saying that you can't just use the vast userbase they built over years to sell the base game, then offer tons of DLC outside of the service that Steam never gets an opportunity to sell.

It's not about putting anyone up on a pedestal, Valve simply does business in a better way than EA and that's reflected in how successful Steam is.

I have stopped caring about Bioware games ever since the Dragon Age 2 fiasco. To each his own, but Im skipping their games unless they somehow manage to repeat the Dragon Age 1 success. (From a pure gameplay/fun factor perspective)

Yet another game I won't be buying. My world didn't end without BF3, and I'm sure I'll survive being denied this console port. So many great games on Steam to choose from. Bioware used to be a must-buy for me. Then they contracted consolitus.

hopefully the negative results of this little marketing experiment give their out-of-touch executives a wake up call similar to the cold, flaccid, cock-slap in the face that is the origin user experience.

What EA is essentially doing is using Steam to provide the dlc in the form of a patch, and then locking out valve from any profits from the dlc by requiring the purchase for dlc to be made in game thru a vendor other than valve. It's not evil in valve's case EA is patching there games thru steam with dlc but not allowing valve to profit in anyway shape or form from providing the patch with the dlc on it.

Except they aren't doing that. The DLC for DA2 and Crysis 2 has to be paid for and downloaded separately. It doesn't come with any patches.

Also, Valve doesn't care if you provide free DLC with your game. Witcher 2 has tons of free DLC and Steam still sells the game.

It wasn't retroactive. So, when DLC was released for Crysis 2 and DA2 they were removed from Steam; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins both came before the change, which related to the addition of F2P titles on Steam.

If that's true, then why are Dirt 3 and Dead Rising 2: Off The Record still available on Steam? Both of those games have DLC that is still only available through GFWL and was released after both Crysis 2 and DA2 were pulled.

It just doesn't really make any sense.

Release date doesn't mean the date contracts were signed. There could be months difference between. I'd imagine the paperwork should be in order prior to a game's actual release to avoid extra delay.

For instance, what if those games still there (such as dirt 2) had signed old version contracts and ended up delaying the release date until after the other games were removed? Even if no delays at all happened, if one company got the paperwork settled a year ahead of release and the other company was tardy and only got the paperwork signed weeks before release, that would explain it.

Another thought, perhaps there's exceptions if the DLC is exclusive to GfWL, which it appears to be the case for both Dirt 3 and DR2:OTR (I don't own either so I don't know for sure, I only spent a few mins googling about it). Valve may not want to tangle with MS over this. In contrast, the DLC for DA2 on PC was through bioware/EA's special store as I recall.

My question is why is it okay for Valve to be greedy about demanding a chunk of profits from DLC they don't fund development on, but EA is oh so evil for wanting to get more of a foothold into the digital distribution space?

This is why I said gamers are hypocrites. At the end of the day it's a business. EA, Valve, Activision, TakeTwo are all in it for the money, none of them deserve any more adoration than any of the rest of em imo.

You have to understand dlc on the pc to understand why valve has taken the stance it has taken. Most dlc on pc games come thru a patch or were present in the game when launched.(most however come thru a patch). What EA is essentially doing is using Steam to provide the dlc in the form of a patch, and then locking out valve from any profits from the dlc by requiring the purchase for dlc to be made in game thru a vendor other than valve. It's not evil in valve's case EA is patching there games thru steam with dlc but not allowing valve to profit in anyway shape or form from providing the patch with the dlc on it.

Boohoo, So Gabe has a few less steaks and cheeseburgers, Valve isn't funding the DLC, why should they be entitled a cut from it? They're ALL greedy, putting any developer/publisher up on a pedestal as some holy bastion to gaming is silly.

Your logic makes no sense. Valve is providing the content to all of its customers but are not entitled to any of the profits?????

With your way of thinking than every game that is put on steam valve should not see a profit from, the devs should receive all the money for there games and valve should do this from the kindness of there heart

You seem to be very unhappy with valve wanting to see a profit from the dlc, but let me ask you this? why are you not unhappy with developers that are charging for dlc when in the past these very same items in 75% of dlc was once provided for free from devs.

It wasn't retroactive. So, when DLC was released for Crysis 2 and DA2 they were removed from Steam; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins both came before the change, which related to the addition of F2P titles on Steam.

If that's true, then why are Dirt 3 and Dead Rising 2: Off The Record still available on Steam? Both of those games have DLC that is still only available through GFWL and was released after both Crysis 2 and DA2 were pulled.

It just doesn't really make any sense.

Release date doesn't mean the date contracts were signed. There could be months difference between. I'd imagine the paperwork should be in order prior to a game's actual release to avoid extra delay.

For instance, what if those games still there (such as dirt 2) had signed old version contracts and ended up delaying the release date until after the other games were removed? Even if no delays at all happened, if one company got the paperwork settled a year ahead of release and the other company was tardy and only got the paperwork signed weeks before release, that would explain it.

Another thought, perhaps there's exceptions if the DLC is exclusive to GfWL, which it appears to be the case for both Dirt 3 and DR2:OTR (I don't own either so I don't know for sure, I only spent a few mins googling about it). Valve may not want to tangle with MS over this. In contrast, the DLC for DA2 on PC was through bioware/EA's special store as I recall.

My question is why is it okay for Valve to be greedy about demanding a chunk of profits from DLC they don't fund development on, but EA is oh so evil for wanting to get more of a foothold into the digital distribution space?

This is why I said gamers are hypocrites. At the end of the day it's a business. EA, Valve, Activision, TakeTwo are all in it for the money, none of them deserve any more adoration than any of the rest of em imo.

You have to understand dlc on the pc to understand why valve has taken the stance it has taken. Most dlc on pc games come thru a patch or were present in the game when launched.(most however come thru a patch). What EA is essentially doing is using Steam to provide the dlc in the form of a patch, and then locking out valve from any profits from the dlc by requiring the purchase for dlc to be made in game thru a vendor other than valve. It's not evil in valve's case EA is patching there games thru steam with dlc but not allowing valve to profit in anyway shape or form from providing the patch with the dlc on it.

Boohoo, So Gabe has a few less steaks and cheeseburgers, Valve isn't funding the DLC, why should they be entitled a cut from it? They're ALL greedy, putting any developer/publisher up on a pedestal as some holy bastion to gaming is silly.

It wasn't retroactive. So, when DLC was released for Crysis 2 and DA2 they were removed from Steam; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins both came before the change, which related to the addition of F2P titles on Steam.

If that's true, then why are Dirt 3 and Dead Rising 2: Off The Record still available on Steam? Both of those games have DLC that is still only available through GFWL and was released after both Crysis 2 and DA2 were pulled.

It just doesn't really make any sense.

Release date doesn't mean the date contracts were signed. There could be months difference between. I'd imagine the paperwork should be in order prior to a game's actual release to avoid extra delay.

For instance, what if those games still there (such as dirt 2) had signed old version contracts and ended up delaying the release date until after the other games were removed? Even if no delays at all happened, if one company got the paperwork settled a year ahead of release and the other company was tardy and only got the paperwork signed weeks before release, that would explain it.

Another thought, perhaps there's exceptions if the DLC is exclusive to GfWL, which it appears to be the case for both Dirt 3 and DR2:OTR (I don't own either so I don't know for sure, I only spent a few mins googling about it). Valve may not want to tangle with MS over this. In contrast, the DLC for DA2 on PC was through bioware/EA's special store as I recall.

My question is why is it okay for Valve to be greedy about demanding a chunk of profits from DLC they don't fund development on, but EA is oh so evil for wanting to get more of a foothold into the digital distribution space?

This is why I said gamers are hypocrites. At the end of the day it's a business. EA, Valve, Activision, TakeTwo are all in it for the money, none of them deserve any more adoration than any of the rest of em imo.

You have to understand dlc on the pc to understand why valve has taken the stance it has taken. Most dlc on pc games come thru a patch or were present in the game when launched.(most however come thru a patch). What EA is essentially doing is using Steam to provide the dlc in the form of a patch, and then locking out valve from any profits from the dlc by requiring the purchase for dlc to be made in game thru a vendor other than valve. It's not evil in valve's case EA is patching there games thru steam with dlc but not allowing valve to profit in anyway shape or form from providing the patch with the dlc on it.

It wasn't retroactive. So, when DLC was released for Crysis 2 and DA2 they were removed from Steam; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins both came before the change, which related to the addition of F2P titles on Steam.

If that's true, then why are Dirt 3 and Dead Rising 2: Off The Record still available on Steam? Both of those games have DLC that is still only available through GFWL and was released after both Crysis 2 and DA2 were pulled.

It just doesn't really make any sense.

Release date doesn't mean the date contracts were signed. There could be months difference between. I'd imagine the paperwork should be in order prior to a game's actual release to avoid extra delay.

For instance, what if those games still there (such as dirt 2) had signed old version contracts and ended up delaying the release date until after the other games were removed? Even if no delays at all happened, if one company got the paperwork settled a year ahead of release and the other company was tardy and only got the paperwork signed weeks before release, that would explain it.

Another thought, perhaps there's exceptions if the DLC is exclusive to GfWL, which it appears to be the case for both Dirt 3 and DR2:OTR (I don't own either so I don't know for sure, I only spent a few mins googling about it). Valve may not want to tangle with MS over this. In contrast, the DLC for DA2 on PC was through bioware/EA's special store as I recall.

My question is why is it okay for Valve to be greedy about demanding a chunk of profits from DLC they don't fund development on, but EA is oh so evil for wanting to get more of a foothold into the digital distribution space?

This is why I said gamers are hypocrites. At the end of the day it's a business. EA, Valve, Activision, TakeTwo are all in it for the money, none of them deserve any more adoration than any of the rest of em imo.

But, MS also has the power to reject valve's games on the xbox if they choose. A lot of recent valve titles are on xbox. You don't think MS would deny any more valve titles on xbox if steam kicked up a fuss about allowing GfWL action on steam?

MS would be dumb to block Valve's games, as they tend to sell pretty well and MS gets royalties from every X360 disc pressed. MS has shown time and again that they're focused on the Xbox at the expense of the PC, so I don't think they'd really care if Steam stopped carrying GFWL games. Pissing off EA seems much more risky, given that EA provided retail distribution for the PC and console versions of Orange Box, L4D1, L4D2 and Portal 2.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 15, 2012, 23:14:That's also possible, but why would Valve choose to tangle with EA instead of MS?

But, MS also has the power to reject valve's games on the xbox if they choose. A lot of recent valve titles are on xbox. You don't think MS would deny any more valve titles on xbox if steam kicked up a fuss about allowing GfWL action on steam? I could also see a fight with MS leading to GfWL titles getting removed from steam (either valve doing it to prove a point, or MS doing it because they can).

Grifter wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 00:19:EA probably signed the contracts but did not read the fine print. This is most likely why there games got taken down

netnerd85 wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 01:04:You don't own your digital games though, you own the physical copy and no one, no company can ever take your games away from your house. Steam could suddenly start charging a fee for the Steam Client and the way they are heading, they probably will. Gabe LOVES mico-transactions, the SINGLE most EVIL thing EVER.

Japanese, canadians, s.koreans, singapore and most people living in the eu do. There's no difference between owning a digital copy and a physical copy in any of those nations. Might be a few more too. But charging for the client would be illegal in all of them as well, since you'd be locked out of something you already own.

It doesn't have to be drm/client free, but if you live in a country that doesn't have laws that cover digital=physical in terms of ownership when bought, then it does.

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

netnerd85 wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 01:04:You don't own your digital games though, you own the physical copy and no one, no company can ever take your games away from your house.

a) I think you need to research what a EULA means.b) More and more games nowadays having the disk is meaningless. If its a steamworks game, all the disk means is you save the download time, it still perma associates with your steam account and becomes a steam game. Nowadays if its an origin game (and you can bet almost all future EA titles will be this way), its similarly locked to your origin account. If it has drm, they often can and do disable your game regardless of the disk. Like ubisoft will disable your game WHILE YOU ARE PLAYING IT, if you should have even a momentary loss of internet connection. They also associate your serial with a uPlay or some such account. This annoys the crap out of me when I bought settlers 7. Over a year after the game came out and they are still having trouble keeping the authentication servers up for their always on drm, which means I have trouble playing a SINGLE PLAYER GAME when I want to. The physical disk means nothing in such a case. Games that have limited activations can easily get used up in upgrades or hardware failure, or just plain reinstalling windows to get a clean install on occasion. Once that happens, if you are lucky you might be on hold for hours on the phone trying to get a game you "own" enabled again. If you aren't lucky, the game isn't supported anymore and you are SOL.EA periodically disables servers for games they publish, some as little as a year old, and not just console servers, but PC ones too. Looks to me like its often to hurry an upgrade to the latest game. Do they care if you have the disk?

Also, since you made an absolute overbroad statement, I can disprove it with a single counter example (regardless of how unlikely it would be). Here's one, you run your own small business out of your home and use MS products. Many volume license agreements say that the company can come into your business (in this case your home) and inspect at any time to make sure you are compliant with the terms of the license. They come in and inspect and you are running 6 copies of windows instead of the 5 you are licensed for. You won't pay the fine, so they sieze your MS disks from your house and stop you from ever using their products again, including that copy of Age of Empires 3 you had.

netnerd85 wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 01:04:Steam could suddenly start charging a fee for the Steam Client and the way they are heading, they probably will. Gabe LOVES mico-transactions, the SINGLE most EVIL thing EVER.

Highly unlikely, especially with the recent push for F2P games on steam. Adding a fee would tend to reduce that. Plus it goes against one of the big pluses of steam, that you can download a game anywhere anytime, even if you haven't played for years.

Yeah Gabe loves them, in TF2. He says they get a 30% conversion rate from people starting with free TF2 to buying something through TF2. Thats a crazy high rate when the industry standard is more like 3%-5%. Why the heck would they have moved TF2 to a F2P model in the first place if they wanted a fee? They would have kept it as paid if they thought having people PAY for it was still the best option.Adding a fee would totally screw up that kinda conversion rate. Aint gonna happen.

The pickle wrote on Jan 15, 2012, 23:18:Digital downloads suck anyways. If I'm gonna spend $60 on a game I want the DVD and manual in my hand not some digital crap.

Physical items fail and consume space. Manuals don't even exist is any meaningful way in modern games; discs get lost, scratched and break; older titles become harder to find; compatibility with future operating systems becomes problematic; patches are hard or impossible to find, etc. Never mind the fact that you have to insert them to play a game or manually search out a no-CD crack. That's a fuck-tonne more effort than simply buying games digitally.

Physical games require more effort and are less practical than digital distribution. Sounds like an ultra-fail to me.

You don't own your digital games though, you own the physical copy and no one, no company can ever take your games away from your house. Steam could suddenly start charging a fee for the Steam Client and the way they are heading, they probably will. Gabe LOVES mico-transactions, the SINGLE most EVIL thing EVER.

If it is Digital, then it has to be DRM free and Client free. I'm slowly moving away from Steam to other services such as GatersGate. The whole industry is turning nasty, and very quickly.